Overview

In a case which has received a great deal of press attention, the Court of Appeal has upheld previous Employment Tribunal and Employment Appeal Tribunal decisions that British Airways’ requirement that an employee remove or conceal a cross she wore on a necklace was not indirect religious discrimination. The Court of Appeal held that an indirect discrimination claim can only be based on a disadvantage to a group, not just to an individual.
Ms Eweida, a practising Christian, objected to that part of her employer British Airways’ dress code which required all those who wore uniform to wear any jewellery concealed under it. There were exceptions for those whose beliefs actually required them to wear items which could not be concealed (such as turbans and hijabs). However, as Christianity does not actually require the visible wearing of a cross the policy exception that applied to those other items did not apply to Ms Eweida’s cross. In 2006, Ms Eweida wore a silver cross on a necklace which was visible whilst she was working. When she refused to conceal the cross after being warned for the third time, she was sent home. She subsequently brought ET claims against BA under the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003.

To read more, click ‘View Briefing’